Trinity - Bible Teaching or Doctrine of Man

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.

Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.

I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]

Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).

And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:

“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)

Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…

[/quote]

Since all three are God, he should not have to say all three. Seems pretty simple to me.[/quote]

My point being that if it’s interchangeable like that, then why does Jesus make a specific point of only mentioning the Father/God? The bible clearly says that Jesus is in subjection to his Father…how can you be under yourself?

The logical conclusion is that someone reading the bible without pre-concieved notions of the trinity would simply conclude that God and Jesus are two separate beings/“personalities”.

Sorry for the “back handed compliment” here, but this whole thread is proof of the fact that some really smart people use their intelligence in the wrong way. People are trying to prove a really absurd point (that Jesus is God). They are using their skills to dance around and explain things that defy common sense and things that the average person (who hasn’t been indoctrinated with the trinity) wouldn’t even think twice about. It’s not a case of God being mysterious and we cannot expect to comprehend, it’s a case of adding to the bible what’s not there in the first place (relying on grammatically incorrect verses, then twisting some other verses to make it fit).[/quote]
Exactly! That is why this was not taught nor believed by the Christians during the time of the apostles. I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia that stated that the apostles did not believe that Jesus was God and the teaching was not developed until the fourth century. When one reads scriptures such as John 21:31 that state the book of John was written so that the reader may believe that Jesus is the son of God and by believing this fact one may have life by means of his name. The only conclusion that one would come to is that Jesus is in a position of that of a father and son meaning they are two different beings. Also, if Jesus was really fully God instead of God’s son as John wants readers to believe and put faith in, then this would undermine the point of John writing this gospel. How so? Because if John has it wrong and Jesus is fully God instead of God’s son then John is telling the readers to put faith in something that is not true and if this is the case then the whole gospel of John is undermined because he states that the reason he wrote the gospel is so people believe and put faith in the fact that Jesus is God’s son. Also, if Jesus is fully God instead of God’s son then John is telling the readers the wrong thing to put faith in to get life. John says that once one believes Jesus is God’s son then one may have life when he believes in Jesus name. But again if John is wrong and Jesus is really fully God then John is telling the readers the wrong thing to put faith in to get life and again this would undermine the whole book of John and John as a Bible writer.

Can you see how the trinity doctrine confuses and undermines the clearly stated teaching in the Bible that Jesus is the son of God, at the right hand of God’s power and is in subjection to God?[/quote]

How would you guys know what the apostles would be teaching? Your founder never knew who the apostles where. As Tribulus’ history shows, and may I remind you that you accepted his history, Russell picked and chose which doctrines he wanted to beleive, and then in 1950 a new Bible translation appeared that backed up all those doctrines. You post is very amusing. What is confusing is your polytheistic teaching of all those gods in heaven.

342

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

Exactly! That is why this was not taught nor believed by the Christians during the time of the apostles. I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia that stated that the apostles did not believe that Jesus was God and the teaching was not developed until the fourth century. [/quote]

Ignatius, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote about Jesus’ 2nd coming, “Look for him that is above the times, him who has not times, him who is invisible”. In a letter to Polycarp he states “Jesus is God”, “God incarnate,” and to the Ephesians he writes, “…God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life.” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13)

Clement of Rome in 96 A. D. also taught Jesusâ?? divinity, saying, â??We ought to think of Jesus Christ as of God.â?? (2nd Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 1:1)

facts are so stubborn . . .
[/quote]

Watch Tower fails again. More taking out of context. This seems to be a trend in the WT.

343

All quotes provided below are prior to the 4th century AD.

Ignatius of Antioch

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with Godâ??s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

Aristides

“[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit” (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).

Tatian the Syrian

“We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).

Melito of Sardis

“It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages” (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinaiâ??s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus

"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

“Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth” (ibid., 3:19:1).

Clement of Alexandria

“The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginningâ??for he was in Godâ??and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things” (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

“Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son” (ibid., 10:110:1).

Tertullian

“The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born” (The Flesh of Christ 5:6â??7 [A.D. 210]).

“That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord” (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).

Origen

“Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).

Hippolytus

“Only [Godâ??s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

Hippolytus of Rome

“For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new” (ibid., 10:34).

Novatian

“If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, â??And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?â?? [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, â??And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,â?? except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, â??And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;â?? but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God” (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).

Gregory the Wonderworker

“There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

344

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
<<< When you look at Jesus being nothing more than an angel I can see why you guys understand the scriptures the way you do. The difference is that when you see Jesus as fully human and fully God you will not even admit you can understand why Christians would interpret the scriptures as we do. You might want to think about this. >>>[/quote]
It’s even more fundamental than this. When you begin with the impenetrable assumption that the things of God cannot lay outside the grasp of creaturely comprehension, fallen, sinful creaturely comprehension at that, all manner of grievous folly must needs of necessity follow.

345

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
<<< When you look at Jesus being nothing more than an angel I can see why you guys understand the scriptures the way you do. The difference is that when you see Jesus as fully human and fully God you will not even admit you can understand why Christians would interpret the scriptures as we do. You might want to think about this. >>>[/quote]
It’s even more fundamental than this. When you begin with the impenetrable assumption that the things of God cannot lay outside the grasp of creaturely comprehension, fallen, sinful creaturely comprehension at that, all manner of grievous folly must needs of necessity follow.[/quote]

Understandable.

346

In my library they have the letters of Ignatius of Antioch in both English and Greek that I need to finish reading some time, he was a total badass.

347

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.

Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.

I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]

Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).

And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:

“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)

Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…

[/quote]

Since all three are God, he should not have to say all three. Seems pretty simple to me.[/quote]

My point being that if it’s interchangeable like that, then why does Jesus make a specific point of only mentioning the Father/God? The bible clearly says that Jesus is in subjection to his Father…how can you be under yourself?

The logical conclusion is that someone reading the bible without pre-concieved notions of the trinity would simply conclude that God and Jesus are two separate beings/“personalities”.

Sorry for the “back handed compliment” here, but this whole thread is proof of the fact that some really smart people use their intelligence in the wrong way. People are trying to prove a really absurd point (that Jesus is God). They are using their skills to dance around and explain things that defy common sense and things that the average person (who hasn’t been indoctrinated with the trinity) wouldn’t even think twice about. It’s not a case of God being mysterious and we cannot expect to comprehend, it’s a case of adding to the bible what’s not there in the first place (relying on grammatically incorrect verses, then twisting some other verses to make it fit).[/quote]
Exactly! That is why this was not taught nor believed by the Christians during the time of the apostles. I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia that stated that the apostles did not believe that Jesus was God and the teaching was not developed until the fourth century. When one reads scriptures such as John 21:31 that state the book of John was written so that the reader may believe that Jesus is the son of God and by believing this fact one may have life by means of his name. The only conclusion that one would come to is that Jesus is in a position of that of a father and son meaning they are two different beings. Also, if Jesus was really fully God instead of God’s son as John wants readers to believe and put faith in, then this would undermine the point of John writing this gospel. How so? Because if John has it wrong and Jesus is fully God instead of God’s son then John is telling the readers to put faith in something that is not true and if this is the case then the whole gospel of John is undermined because he states that the reason he wrote the gospel is so people believe and put faith in the fact that Jesus is God’s son. Also, if Jesus is fully God instead of God’s son then John is telling the readers the wrong thing to put faith in to get life. John says that once one believes Jesus is God’s son then one may have life when he believes in Jesus name. But again if John is wrong and Jesus is really fully God then John is telling the readers the wrong thing to put faith in to get life and again this would undermine the whole book of John and John as a Bible writer.

Can you see how the trinity doctrine confuses and undermines the clearly stated teaching in the Bible that Jesus is the son of God, at the right hand of God’s power and is in subjection to God?[/quote]

It is slightly frustrating because both sides of the argument are sure they have the truth, and I’m sure both sides are just as determined to get the other to “see” LOL

From where I’m standing, it can’t be any clearer where we stand:

Jesus is a heavenly leader under God.

When Jesus came to earth, he was fully human (no disagreements there). But he was still God’s son (whether this is taken literally or not, it means that God favoured him to the highest degree). He reflected Gods personality so well due to spending aeons with each other that he could say he and God are “one” (they had practically the same personalities/aspirations etc)…just like Jesus prayed that his disciples would be like one with him.

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not see Jesus “as a mere angel”. That is putting words in our mouth. When referring to Jesus’ pre human existence, Jehovah’s Witnesses understand that Jesus was a leader in heaven (he could give angels orders). He was the most prominent spirit being in heaven next to God.

I don’t like to refer to Jesus as an angel as such, because he had more authority than just a messenger, but to refer to him as an angel in the sense of his “physical” characteristics (i.e. spirit beings in subjection to God), THAT is more accurate than to call him God himself.

348

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.

Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.

I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]

Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).

And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:

“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)

Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…

[/quote]

Since all three are God, he should not have to say all three. Seems pretty simple to me.[/quote]

My point being that if it’s interchangeable like that, then why does Jesus make a specific point of only mentioning the Father/God? The bible clearly says that Jesus is in subjection to his Father…how can you be under yourself?

The logical conclusion is that someone reading the bible without pre-concieved notions of the trinity would simply conclude that God and Jesus are two separate beings/“personalities”.

Sorry for the “back handed compliment” here, but this whole thread is proof of the fact that some really smart people use their intelligence in the wrong way. People are trying to prove a really absurd point (that Jesus is God). They are using their skills to dance around and explain things that defy common sense and things that the average person (who hasn’t been indoctrinated with the trinity) wouldn’t even think twice about. It’s not a case of God being mysterious and we cannot expect to comprehend, it’s a case of adding to the bible what’s not there in the first place (relying on grammatically incorrect verses, then twisting some other verses to make it fit).[/quote]

Are you guys not understanding that Jesus is fully human also. Because he is human, and since he humbled himself wouldn’t he want to give glory to God? And in giving glory to God he also gives glory to himself.

When you look at Jesus being nothing more than an angel I can see why you guys understand the scriptures the way you do. The difference is that when you see Jesus as fully human and fully God you will not even admit you can understand why Christians would interpret the scriptures as we do. You might want to think about this.

If you read the Bible with the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is also God, you will never again need the WT to help you out. Christians beleive that the Holy Spirit is also God. What is yalls explanation of Jehovah’s Active Force? Is he another “a god,” or is he something else?[/quote]

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not see Jesus “as a mere angel”. That is putting words in our mouth. When referring to Jesus’ pre human existence, Jehovah’s Witnesses understand that Jesus was a leader in heaven (he could give angels orders). He was the most prominent spirit being in heaven next to God.

I don’t like to refer to Jesus as an angel as such, because he had more authority than just a messenger, but to refer to him as an angel in the sense of his “physical” characteristics (i.e. spirit beings in subjection to God), THAT is more accurate than to call him God himself.

There is a difference in reading the bible with Holy spirit and being swayed by personal interpretation. God will not prevent a person from coming to their own conclusions if they have an agenda.

I don’t mean that I have no regard for the Watch Tower, but not once have I referred to it during this discussion (whether physically or mentally)…all I’ve used is software like E-sword (for different translations and Greek) and my own bible trained common sense :slight_smile:

349

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.

Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.

I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]

Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).

And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:

“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)

Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…

[/quote]

Since all three are God, he should not have to say all three. Seems pretty simple to me.[/quote]

My point being that if it’s interchangeable like that, then why does Jesus make a specific point of only mentioning the Father/God? The bible clearly says that Jesus is in subjection to his Father…how can you be under yourself?

The logical conclusion is that someone reading the bible without pre-concieved notions of the trinity would simply conclude that God and Jesus are two separate beings/“personalities”.

Sorry for the “back handed compliment” here, but this whole thread is proof of the fact that some really smart people use their intelligence in the wrong way. People are trying to prove a really absurd point (that Jesus is God). They are using their skills to dance around and explain things that defy common sense and things that the average person (who hasn’t been indoctrinated with the trinity) wouldn’t even think twice about. It’s not a case of God being mysterious and we cannot expect to comprehend, it’s a case of adding to the bible what’s not there in the first place (relying on grammatically incorrect verses, then twisting some other verses to make it fit).[/quote]
Exactly! That is why this was not taught nor believed by the Christians during the time of the apostles. I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia that stated that the apostles did not believe that Jesus was God and the teaching was not developed until the fourth century. When one reads scriptures such as John 21:31 that state the book of John was written so that the reader may believe that Jesus is the son of God and by believing this fact one may have life by means of his name. The only conclusion that one would come to is that Jesus is in a position of that of a father and son meaning they are two different beings. Also, if Jesus was really fully God instead of God’s son as John wants readers to believe and put faith in, then this would undermine the point of John writing this gospel. How so? Because if John has it wrong and Jesus is fully God instead of God’s son then John is telling the readers to put faith in something that is not true and if this is the case then the whole gospel of John is undermined because he states that the reason he wrote the gospel is so people believe and put faith in the fact that Jesus is God’s son. Also, if Jesus is fully God instead of God’s son then John is telling the readers the wrong thing to put faith in to get life. John says that once one believes Jesus is God’s son then one may have life when he believes in Jesus name. But again if John is wrong and Jesus is really fully God then John is telling the readers the wrong thing to put faith in to get life and again this would undermine the whole book of John and John as a Bible writer.

Can you see how the trinity doctrine confuses and undermines the clearly stated teaching in the Bible that Jesus is the son of God, at the right hand of God’s power and is in subjection to God?[/quote]

It is slightly frustrating because both sides of the argument are sure they have the truth, and I’m sure both sides are just as determined to get the other to “see” LOL

From where I’m standing, it can’t be any clearer where we stand:

Jesus is a heavenly leader under God.

When Jesus came to earth, he was fully human (no disagreements there). But he was still God’s son (whether this is taken literally or not, it means that God favoured him to the highest degree). He reflected Gods personality so well due to spending aeons with each other that he could say he and God are “one” (they had practically the same personalities/aspirations etc)…just like Jesus prayed that his disciples would be like one with him.

[/quote]

I asked this earlier, and just do not understand.

Jesus, was the arch-angel Michael 2nd in command to God, then became human, then after the resurrection was promoted to 2nd in command? You guys say it is so logical but this makes no sense what so ever.

If Jesus was the first created, as you say, how could he ever have been the arch-angel Michael? It never said that the Arch-Angel Michael was the first created.

I do not beleive that Jesus was created, but I will say that his human side was. God became flesh as stated in John 1. You will say that John 1 does not say that God became flesh. I say that if the Word was God, and the Word became flesh, then it is God that became flesh. God loves us so much he gave up his throne to become human. The arch-angel Michael did not have a throne so he was not giving up anything to become human. God is the only one that has anything to give up to save us. He loves us so much that he wanted to give us a way back to him.

You guys can say whatever you want to say about the translation, but until you give some background information on the guys that translated the NWT then there is nothing to discuss on the translation. Christian translations have been done by the smartest minds of each generation. Tribulus has given background on the one person possibly known to have had a hand in translating the NWT and even atheist Greek linguists think his translations are crap.

350

On a related note this guy http://www.theword.gr/ has developed a positively first rate Bible program that is absolutely free in every way except for the addons copyrighted by 3rd parties. I sent him a donation and bought the NASB module. Fantastic!!!

351

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.

Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.

I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[/quote]

Jesus used parables to emphasise the point, and to those who deserved it, he explained it to them. Most of what Jesus taught, however, was direct (e.g. to be peaceable/not judgemental/love your enemies/“shine the light”/be humble/depend on God etc).

And let’s not forget one of the most important commands that Jesus confirmed:

“Love God with all your heart/soul/mind” (Matthew 22:37)

Notice he didn’t say love God, or me, or the Holy spirit…

[/quote]

Since all three are God, he should not have to say all three. Seems pretty simple to me.[/quote]

My point being that if it’s interchangeable like that, then why does Jesus make a specific point of only mentioning the Father/God? The bible clearly says that Jesus is in subjection to his Father…how can you be under yourself?

The logical conclusion is that someone reading the bible without pre-concieved notions of the trinity would simply conclude that God and Jesus are two separate beings/“personalities”.

Sorry for the “back handed compliment” here, but this whole thread is proof of the fact that some really smart people use their intelligence in the wrong way. People are trying to prove a really absurd point (that Jesus is God). They are using their skills to dance around and explain things that defy common sense and things that the average person (who hasn’t been indoctrinated with the trinity) wouldn’t even think twice about. It’s not a case of God being mysterious and we cannot expect to comprehend, it’s a case of adding to the bible what’s not there in the first place (relying on grammatically incorrect verses, then twisting some other verses to make it fit).[/quote]

Are you guys not understanding that Jesus is fully human also. Because he is human, and since he humbled himself wouldn’t he want to give glory to God? And in giving glory to God he also gives glory to himself.

When you look at Jesus being nothing more than an angel I can see why you guys understand the scriptures the way you do. The difference is that when you see Jesus as fully human and fully God you will not even admit you can understand why Christians would interpret the scriptures as we do. You might want to think about this.

If you read the Bible with the leading of the Holy Spirit, which is also God, you will never again need the WT to help you out. Christians beleive that the Holy Spirit is also God. What is yalls explanation of Jehovah’s Active Force? Is he another “a god,” or is he something else?[/quote]

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not see Jesus “as a mere angel”. That is putting words in our mouth. When referring to Jesus’ pre human existence, Jehovah’s Witnesses understand that Jesus was a leader in heaven (he could give angels orders). He was the most prominent spirit being in heaven next to God.

I don’t like to refer to Jesus as an angel as such, because he had more authority than just a messenger, but to refer to him as an angel in the sense of his “physical” characteristics (i.e. spirit beings in subjection to God), THAT is more accurate than to call him God himself.

There is a difference in reading the bible with Holy spirit and being swayed by personal interpretation. God will not prevent a person from coming to their own conclusions if they have an agenda.

I don’t mean that I have no regard for the Watch Tower, but not once have I referred to it during this discussion (whether physically or mentally)…all I’ve used is software like E-sword (for different translations and Greek) and my own bible trained common sense :)[/quote]

And where did you get your own bible trained common sense? Watch Tower, and Watch Tower approved Kingdom Halls. I liked your smiley face though.

352

Isaiah 42:8(KJV)I am the [YHVH]: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another
Isaiah 45:5(KJV)I am the [YHVH], and there is none else, there is no God beside me.
Hosea 13:4(KJV)Yet I am the [YHVH] thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.
Hebrew/English source(Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre)
These passages are not reconcilable with watchtower beliefs if Jesus(Yeshua “God is Salvation”) is a god and not God[YHVH]. It is impossible for Jesus to say “John 17:5(KJV)And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” without claiming to be the Almighty God without contradicting the scriptures.

353

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On a related note this guy http://www.theword.gr/ has developed a positively first rate Bible program that is absolutely free in every way except for the addons copyrighted by 3rd parties. I sent him a donation and bought the NASB module. Fantastic!!![/quote]

What does this program do?

354

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On a related note this guy http://www.theword.gr/ has developed a positively first rate Bible program that is absolutely free in every way except for the addons copyrighted by 3rd parties. I sent him a donation and bought the NASB module. Fantastic!!![/quote]

What does this program do?[/quote]
Everything that matters. He wrote it on a modular database system which makes searching and saving etc. a breeze. With some of the free add on modules it’s basically a small library with all the major tools in one interface. Also lightning fast even on older machines.

355

Here are more resources for those interested:

Early Church Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library - writings of the early church fathers

www.fordham.edu/halsall/Sbook.html - great source for all sorts of primary historical docs

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Home - the actual Catholic Encyclopedia - for those who often quote about it, but never from it . . .

356

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html - more early church writings

The Internet Classics Archive | Browse - the classical authors

357

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
On a related note this guy http://www.theword.gr/ has developed a positively first rate Bible program that is absolutely free in every way except for the addons copyrighted by 3rd parties. I sent him a donation and bought the NASB module. Fantastic!!![/quote]

What does this program do?[/quote]
Everything that matters. He wrote it on a modular database system which makes searching and saving etc. a breeze. With some of the free add on modules it’s basically a small library with all the major tools in one interface. Also lightning fast even on older machines.

Looks like a great tool - thanks for sharing the info!

358

Cueball, I apologize for not answering your question about why we think Jesus is Michael the archangel. I’ve been very busy at work and often times it takes me the whole work day to complete one post. I’m not sure if this has been addressed so I apologize if I’m repeating an explanation.

The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was in heaven before he came to earth. Jesus said at John 3:13 states “Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” And Jesus makes it clear at John 17:5 that when he was in heaven he was not God but at God’s side when he ask his Father to glorify him with the glory he had alongside his father before the earth was. Also, the Bible identifies Jesus as Wisdom at 1 Corinthians 1:24,30 so once you realize this you can go to Proverbs 8:22-30 and see Jesus in his prehuman existence and get a better understanding of God and Jesus’ relationship. In that passage you will see that Jesus in his prehuman existence is the first thing God created which harmonizes with Colossians 1:15 and and that God used the prehuman Jesus as a Craftsman or Masterworker who he created everything through which harmonizes with Colossians 1:16,17.

Once one understands that Jesus was in heaven alongside his Father then you can begin to identify who Jesus was in heaven. First the term archangel means chief or principal angel and the term archangel is only used in the singular. It would only be fitting that the firstborn of all creation who God used to create everything including the other angels and who is the image of God be given the title archangel and would be the highest ranking angel in heaven. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, which suggest that he himself is the archangel. This text shows him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It would only make sence that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangelâ??s voice” would not be appropreate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.

The Bible also describes both Jesus and Michael as leading an army of angels. Revelation 12:7 states that Michael and his angels battled the dragon and its angels. So Michael is Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation 19:14-16 also describes Jesus as the Leader of a faithful army of angels. At 2 Thessalonians 1:7 Paul mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels” Matthew 16:27, 24:31 also mentions Jesus and his angels. Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven - one led by Michael and one led by Jesus we feel that it’s logical to conclude that Michael is Jesus in his heavenly position.

Now in regards to the scripture Dmaddox asked about in Hebrews were the question is ask when has God asked and angel to sit at his right hand. This has been answered by myself and its_just_me answered this really well yesterday but I’ll answer this again. When Jesus was in heaven and Michael the archangel he was the chief or principle angel out of all the other angels in heaven but he had not yet been exalted to the right hand of God’s power.

Luke confirms this at Acts 2:33 which states:
“Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which YOU see and hear.”

And Jesus himself says this at Matthew 26:64 that he will be sitting at the right hand of power. So after Jesus died and went back to heaven God rewarded him for his faithfulness and did something that he had not done previously with any other angel - that is allowing Jesus to sit at the right hand of his power.

359

^ OMG - R U Kidding ME!

360

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
^ OMG - R U Kidding ME![/quote]
And they’re telling us that people have to be taught the doctrine of a triune God through tortured scripture in order to see it.